Announcement

**Dietrich Maerz** · 05-03-2014, 07:54 AM

Andreas,

I did not say that they were maybe stupid, you said that they were not that stupid to mix L/11 and 11 up.
I just showed you an example to the contrary (and it is not a letter, it is printed into the catalog). For me this is evidence, together with "L/11" and "11" and possibly "L 15" and "15" that there was no clear understanding, that's all. Some companies, like Schickle, got it, others didn't. The "L 16" is a hard fact for that.

Dietrich

**Leroy** · 05-03-2014, 08:03 AM

Are they mixing up PKZ and "L" numbers, too?

**Andreas Klein** · 05-03-2014, 08:22 AM

Dietrich,

ok i see ... but on the other hand i think we would see more of those confusions if the additional "L" had been such a mysterious thing to the makers.

Fore example: 16 and L/16 or 13 and L/13 but to be honest it seems that only the combo Grossmann/Deumer had such big confussions.

Let me think out loud another theory about Grossmann/Deumer:

1.
Based on the books "My memories" by Mr. Doehle and "Die Deschler Fotos - Dokumentation der Herstellung des Eisernen Kreuzes 2. Kl. 1939" by Mr. Beer the firm Steinhauer&Lück and therefore the area of Lüdenscheid was responsible for the tools of the iron cross.

Perhaps Grossmann asked Deumer for assitance on the iron cross production or tools to fulfill their orders.

and on the other hand ...

2.
We know that the area of Vienna was the leading area for wound badge tools so perhaps Grossmann as Vienna based maker helped Deumer on Deumer's first production run for the wound badge.

To support this i add another Deumer early war wound badge to the list from HansN and would like to point to the noticeable similarities to hardware which is typical for the firm of Gustav Brehmer.

To me it seems that Deumer did start at once the iron cross production with their own tools while for other badges they were using/testing third party tools before they did have some own tools for that.

Attached Files

**Hans N** · 05-03-2014, 09:50 AM

Andreas could you post the obverse of that SWB as well?

**Thomas Durante** · 05-03-2014, 09:51 AM

Hi guys,

If a firm like Frank & Reif could mis-spell their own name, then is it really hard to believe that mistakes were made with a newly-instituted numbering system? Add to the confusion that a totally separate, but very similar PK numbering system was instituted around the same time, then its almost inevitable that mistakers were made, especially in the beginning. I am not saying that is definitely the case with Deumer/Grossmann, but it must be a scenario to consider unfortunately. I don't say they are stupid, just that mistakes can and will be made.

Tom

Attached Files

9e-schwelch.jpg (183.1 KB, 128 views)

**Andreas Klein** · 05-03-2014, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Hans N View Post

Andreas could you post the obverse of that SWB as well?

Here it is:

Attached Files

L11 obverse (1 von 1).jpg (136.1 KB, 133 views)

**Dietrich Maerz** · 05-03-2014, 10:01 AM

(Just a side note because this seems to be a very stubborn myth:
Regarding to the German sources and Mr. Preuss (somebody who worked at S&L during the war a Vice President and a surviving employeee) the PKZ numbering system was introduced in 1943. Evidence suggest it was late 1942 and therefore not around the same time but rather at least 1 1/2 years later.)

**Hans N** · 05-03-2014, 10:01 AM

Thanks Andreas! I picked an odd SWB a couple of months ago that has a double makermark that didn´t make sense. I´ll post it when i get home from work

**Thomas Durante** · 05-03-2014, 10:20 AM

Dietrich, that is certainly a good source for the PK numbers in 1943, but I continue to wonder if he was mistaken for two reasons:

1. Frank Thater's EK1 book states the PK numbers were instituted in 1941. I have to think, like you, he has documents or other evidence to base this on.

2. From a logical standpoint, it seems to me that the PK numbers might actually be first. I know not everything follows logic, but the PK list seems very simple and straight forward. It starts at 1, and each firm was simply given a number with no need for prefix. The LDO list is more complicated; it starts at 10 for some reason, and there was a need to add a prefix "L/". Why? There was clearly a need to differentiate this list, so that is why it makes me think that both numbering systems were formed at roughly the same time and/or the PK system was earlier because of its simpler form.

Tom

**Leroy** · 05-03-2014, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

Regarding to the German sources and Mr. Preuss (somebody who worked at S&L during the war a Vice President and a surviving employeee) the PKZ numbering system was introduced in 1943. Evidence suggest it was late 1942 and therefore not around the same time but rather at least 1 1/2 years later.)

What are the "German sources" and, separately, what is the source of Mr.Preuss' comments (is is the same letter/article/whatever which has been mentioned talking about the order for the DK's in July, 1944)? Not that I doubt these exist in some form, but it would be helpful to show them so everyone could actually see.

**Dietrich Maerz** · 05-03-2014, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

Dietrich, that is certainly a good source for the PK numbers in 1943, but I continue to wonder if he was mistaken for two reasons:

1. Frank Thater's EK1 book states the PK numbers were instituted in 1941. I have to think, like you, he has documents or other evidence to base this on.

2. From a logical standpoint, it seems to me that the PK numbers might actually be first. I know not everything follows logic, but the PK list seems very simple and straight forward. It starts at 1, and each firm was simply given a number with no need for prefix. The LDO list is more complicated; it starts at 10 for some reason, and there was a need to add a prefix "L/". Why? There was clearly a need to differentiate this list, so that is why it makes me think that both numbering systems were formed at roughly the same time and/or the PK system was earlier because of its simpler form.

Tom

Tom,

Frank is flat out wrong and he has no document or whatever to back that up. I asked him several times and he admitted to that. I am sure you don't believe me so please ask him directly.

I am no longer arguing the topic because it is absolutely useless. When even the word of the former Vice-President of S&L is no longer a credible source (or the existence of a lot of early German Crosses without any PKZ number, but some with L/52, same story with Oakleaves and Oakleaves and Swords and the RK) the base for meaningful discussion is no longer there.

Dietrich

**Thomas Durante** · 05-03-2014, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

I am sure you don't believe me so please ask him directly.

Where did that come from??

Two extremely well-researched books have a 2 year discrepancy in the start of the PK numbers, so the matter seems far from settled. It is not an affront to your credibility, but merely a reflection of how we all try to make sense of a huge puzzle with very few pieces available to us. The answer to this is very relevant to our discussion. If you are right and the PK numbers came a few years later, then I tend to agree with Andreas that a "mistake" on Deumer's part is unlikely. However, if Frank Thater is correct and the PK numbers date to 1941, then a mistake by Deumer is much more plausible.

Tom

**Dietrich Maerz** · 05-03-2014, 01:02 PM

Evidently you really don't believe me when I say that Frank Thater told me that he has no documents and that he basically made this up - an "too early time assumption" as he said. So please ask him, this is the only way "to settle this" since the lack of documentation in his book and the unsurmountable evidence for the 1942/43 introduction doesn't count. Not to mention the testimony of a former employee of S&L (as shown below since my word is not enough. Source: Orden und Militaria Journal. No. 26, Sept. 1977)

Attached Files

Preuss-PKZ.jpg (115.6 KB, 136 views)

**Norm F** · 05-03-2014, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Durante View Post

If you are right and the PK numbers came a few years later, then I tend to agree with Andreas that a "mistake" on Deumer's part is unlikely.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I don't think that follows? If anything, one could argue that if the PK numbers didn't yet exist (as Dietrich's research suggests), then the mistake of leaving off the "L" for the LDO number was more likely, since there was no other system to confuse it with at the time.

Best regards,
---Norm

**Dietrich Maerz** · 05-03-2014, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Norm F View Post

Hi Tom,

I don't think that follows? If anything, one could argue that if the PK numbers didn't yet exist (as Dietrich's research suggests), then the mistake of leaving off the "L" for the LDO number was more likely, since there was no other system to confuse it with at the time.

Best regards,
---Norm

That is exactly right and also explains the confusion of using the "/" or not.

Announcement

The Deumer oval crimp PAB... missing link finally found!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread